"a man who thinks he's a woman can go to work wearing women's clothes and use the women's restroom!!!!!"

*gasp*
*shriek*
*shudder*
*convulse*
*die*

is that what they think will happen?
BEWARE THE VAMPIRE TRANSVESTITE IN DATA PROCESSING!!!!!!!! muwahAHAHAHAHA!!!

~~~~
by the gods, sometimes i'm embarassed to be an american. it's positively disgusting to me that we're still having this conversation. when will we ever break the cycle of violence and oppression against the "least" among us???

oh yeah. right. we're americans. so the answer to that question is, "never."

ENDA will make not only homosexuality and gender confusion federally-protected minority classes in federal law, but it will also be extended to include a whole range of 30 “sexual orientations” – including bestiality and pedophilia – in the workplace...

ENDA defines “sexual orientation” as homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality, but also adds “gender identity” as a protected class.

These two sentences do not agree with eachother. The first one implies that the law will make pedophiles and bestiality legally protected (so as to plant a seed of worry) and the second sentence tells the truthe (to avoid getting sued I assume. Fucking oily bastards.

It also includes she-males, individuals who undergo only half of a sex-change operation. They are male from the waist down and female from the waist up.

I answer this with a resound "so what?" What do care what genitalia the person flipping my burger/taking my bank deposit/driving my cab has or what (consenting adult caveat of course) he has sex with. Seriously, if this shit is a pre-occupation of these people, I think it says more about the righties than the gays or the shemales.

Those stats opening the post are heartening and remind us, that media hype and obfuscation can't hide the fact that Americans are generally decent people.posted by jonmc at 6:33 PM on September 4, 2007 [3 favorites]

CitizenD, did you only read the TVC part of the post? Look at the stats amberglow posted. They are a loud minority. Don't project them on an entire nation.posted by jonmc at 6:34 PM on September 4, 2007

Remember, kids: if you don't understand it, it must be bad.

I looked at that picture of the drag queen on the last link, with the caption "Good afternoon. I'm here to apply for your Day Care worker position. You MUST hire me!" Fearmongering, obviously.

But then I thought of the lovely woman at the day care my kids go to, who my daughter in particular is very fond of, and who takes very good care of them -- but has tons of piercings and a body full of tattoos, including a naked woman tattooed to her arm (although she is straight.) I wonder -- if the day care was run by people like you might find at the TVC, would they have hired her? More specifically, what kind of uptight, unaccepting person might potentially be helping me raise my children instead?

Then I thought of two friends of ours, a gay couple who (sadly) are moving away. They babysit our kids once in a while, and my children adore them. They're brilliant (both college professors), funny and caring people, and I can only hope my kids might consider them role models someday. If I were like the people who you might find at the TVC, would I turn down their offer to babysit once and a while? Would I be a better parent if I protected my kids from teh gay, rather than give them two genius role models who my kids run to hug when they come in the door?

And so I look at that fearmongering picture, and to be frank, it's effective -- the idea of letting my kids be cared for by a drag queen makes me a little nervous. I walk a fence where I am comfortable with sexuality regardless of orientation, but put off by people who are not sure where their orientation is.

Luckily, I can see that the issue is not within the trans-gendered community, but my own lack of comfort and understanding -- and since being open to other things that the TVC might find questionable has been beneficial to my children, perhaps I should get over it.

In short: thank you TVC, for helping me realize the error of my own discomfort. Bring on the trans-gendered day care folks!posted by davejay at 6:37 PM on September 4, 2007 [5 favorites]

Just throwing this out there to be devil's advocate... if the numbers for both public and corporate support are so high, doesn't that serve as a counterpoint to the need for legislation? Do we need legislation protecting people from discrimination based on their astrological sign? Of course not, because the vast majority of people think that would be a stupid metric.

That said, screw the tighty-righties. Their abject failure to provide any basis for their objections beyond an institutionalized "ick" factor negates their argument.posted by Riki tiki at 6:45 PM on September 4, 2007

Do we need legislation protecting people from discrimination based on their astrological sign? Of course not, because the vast majority of people think that would be a stupid metric.

No, that law isn't neccessary because there isn't a long documented history of people being fired for their Zodiac sign.

(disbands Sagittarian Liberation Front)posted by jonmc at 6:48 PM on September 4, 2007

the numbers are very high, Riki, but the Fortune 500 doesn't really employ a giant amount of people here, and public support for equality in employment doesn't translate into all bosses ensuring that their companies do it. It's abstract as a poll question, but not abstract in reality, and conflicts with the prevalence and desire for "at-will" employment (and bosses as kings of their little domains?) in some people's eyes.

There's still a lot of discrimination because of race, religion and sex (which are all protected by existing federal law), but national protections mean at least you can fight it, and it sends a very strong message.posted by amberglow at 6:58 PM on September 4, 2007

Polls are great. There is always that holdout of 10%. 10% of any population believes basically whatever you want them to.

"Is Elvis your personal saviour?" 10% will say yes.
"Should you be beaten by your neighbours?" 10%.
"Should it be made illegal for women to vote?" 10%.posted by blacklite at 6:59 PM on September 4, 2007

Just throwing this out there to be devil's advocate... if the numbers for both public and corporate support are so high, doesn't that serve as a counterpoint to the need for legislation? Do we need legislation protecting people from discrimination based on their astrological sign? Of course not, because the vast majority of people think that would be a stupid metric.

Well, what jonmc said. But right now it is legal to discriminate on the basis of astrological symbol, or fatness, attractiveness, or gayness for that matter. Anything that's not a protected class. The purpose of the bill is to add homosexuality to the list of protected classes.

(Different states have extra rules, though. In some, homosexuality is a protected class)posted by delmoi at 7:00 PM on September 4, 2007

delmoi, i think they aren't exempt from racial, but are exempt from religious discrimination: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:... This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities. ...posted by amberglow at 7:01 PM on September 4, 2007

I find it ironic that big business is so far ahead of government on this issue.posted by octothorpe at 7:01 PM on September 4, 2007

How come Tammy Faye Baker is on the flyer? And these gay restrooms, do they have glory holes already built in?posted by daninnj at 7:09 PM on September 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

I find it ironic that big business is so far ahead of government on this issue.

Maybe big business figured out that gay people like money, too, and found it profitable to have them on board.posted by jonmc at 7:10 PM on September 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think I'm fairly pro-gay-rights. I think gay marriage should be legal. I think gays should be able to serve in the military. I don't think people should discriminate against them in any way.

That said, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with this law. I'm of the opinion that unless one can show that gays, as a class, are being discriminated against in the work place, then I'm hard pressed to support enshrining their status into law as something deserving of protection. It seems to me that the private sector is handling this pretty well on its own.

I may be indulging in stereotypes here, but aren't gays as a class more well off and higher educated than the population at large? It's hard to say that this class of people which seems to be competing perfectly well in the workplace now suddenly needs federal protection.posted by empath at 7:29 PM on September 4, 2007

I find it ironic that big business is so far ahead of government on this issue.

All big business cares about is their bottom line. They'll fund GOP hate mongering if it gets their taxes cut, but they won't fire people who are making them money.posted by empath at 7:31 PM on September 4, 2007

But just for the purposes of discussion-- does anyone in this thread know of someone who was discriminated against on the job for being gay? Maybe it's just because I live in a gay-friendly city that I don't see it.posted by empath at 7:32 PM on September 4, 2007

I work for a Fortune 500 company (one that is often assumed to be ultra conservative, but turns out to be pretty progressive), and let me tell you how it works. The company realizes that success depends on getting the best and brightest to come work for you. What this means is not only should they not discriminate against just about anyone, they should also actively encourage everyone's participation. There are employee groups for gays, blacks, asians, veterans, etc. These groups are encouraged to participate in the community worldwide. There is also a huge push to encourage a "green" operation since not only does it make economic sense (using less energy saves money after all), but it's a huge image and hence marketing issue as well. Being a part of the local community at all of our international locations is hugely important.

So, being progressive by being an early Fortune 500 company to the domestic partner benefit thing, encouraging diversity (there is an in-company diversity award), are huge factors when recruiting talent. The upper management sets the tone, and the middle/lower management wanting to move up kisses as and sucks upper management cock every way they can, so the vision becomes policy. Whether any of these people actually believe in any of this, I don't know. I do know that cocksucking makes the corporation run, so everyone buys into it.

Seriously, if it was cheaper for employees to die weekly, that would be happening.

Ultimately it's all about profit at any expense. If lesbian transexuals were the best marketers in the world, then they'd not only be actively recruited, but they'd be given very high and visible stature.

This is completely different than our political situation here in the USA. In politics, you are only allowed to suck cock if you have lots of money. So a minority of the people who have a lot of money get the most cock sucking in, and hence have the most influence on the government. That explains the disparity of opinion between what polls say, and what the government does.

So, in a nutshell, business doesn't care if you suck cock, as long as you can make money. Politics only cares if you bring money, whether you suck cock or not.posted by Eekacat at 7:37 PM on September 4, 2007 [4 favorites]

"does anyone in this thread know of someone who was discriminated against on the job for being gay?"
Better, I worked for 2 people who discriminated against gays, blacks, arabs, and just about any non-white christian who came along.
Too bad about that anonymous call to the health department that shut one of them down for 3 weeks and helped push them into bankruptcy a couple of months later.posted by 2sheets at 7:41 PM on September 4, 2007 [2 favorites]

Look, as long as the the voters of the several States don't employ them in the US Senate.

FWIW, a little googling brings us a Harris survey from 2002: "Two out of five gay and lesbian adults in America’s workplaces report facing some form of hostility or harassment on the job, according to a new national study conducted by Witeck-Combs Communications and Harris Interactive®. Moreover, almost one in ten gay and lesbian adults state they were fired or dismissed unfairly from a previous job or pressured to quit a job because of their sexual orientation." (more...) Granted, the survey was commissioned for the GLBT "Out & Equal Workplace Summit". I don't know whether the details of the survey or how they defined words like "hostility," "harassment," and "unfairness", but as a gay man, I'd say it reflects accurately reflects perceptions.posted by Robert Angelo at 8:03 PM on September 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

Great comment Eekacat.

That TVA site is something else. Somehow, I had never seen that site before but reading it cracked me up. "RUN RUN. THE TRANNIES ARE COMING!!!1!"posted by cayla at 8:08 PM on September 4, 2007

See also the HRC's web page and report (PDF) "Documenting Discrimination" to read reports of anti-GLBT discrimination or to submit your own story.posted by Robert Angelo at 8:09 PM on September 4, 2007

does anyone in this thread know of someone who was discriminated against on the job for being gay?

I've known many, many schoolteachers in semi-rural districts around Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill who go to great lengths to hide their sexuality because they are convinced they would be quickly fired if their principals/superintendents found out they were gay. It's gotten somewhat better, but the answer to your question is, yes, there are a lot of people who have jobs that are constantly in peril over the issue of sexuality.

I'm actually surprised you had to ask, but I'm happy to set you straight, as they say.posted by mediareport at 8:28 PM on September 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

So, in a nutshell, business doesn't care if you suck cock...
See, now that's where it gets tricky. They care if you're a woman.posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:31 PM on September 4, 2007

Why is there a religious exception? How can that be legal?posted by jeblis at 9:28 PM on September 4, 2007

There's little question that conditions in the workplace are better than they were 5, 10, 15, and 20 years ago. That said, it's still legal for employers to fire employees for being gay in 34 states. That's 34 states too many.posted by blucevalo at 9:28 PM on September 4, 2007

does anyone in this thread know of someone who was discriminated against on the job for being gay? Maybe it's just because I live in a gay-friendly city that I don't see it.
Me, and almost everyone i know--and i've always lived right here, in "a gay-friendly city" too.posted by amberglow at 10:39 PM on September 4, 2007

and this, about general conditions and fairness at corps.: the Corporate Leavers Survey from Level Playing Field-- from the summary pdf: ... Gay and lesbian professionals and managers said workplace unfairness was the only reason they left their employer almost twice as often as heterosexual Caucasian men. ... posted by amberglow at 10:57 PM on September 4, 2007

(ask many of us and we'll each have something to tell about it)posted by amberglow at 11:02 PM on September 4, 2007

Yeah, public opinion polls are awesome. Until you actually have a vote.

Just mathematically, a fair number of Michigan folk who said they were cool with same-sex marriage turned out to be more cool with voting for it to never happen in Michigan.posted by klangklangston at 11:13 PM on September 4, 2007

Echoing what amberglow said. Of the GLBT folks I know, myself included, I can only think of a few who haven't been discriminated against in employment.posted by jiawen at 1:36 AM on September 5, 2007

I don't recall ever being discriminated against in employment. Housing, yes. Every other kind of harassment, yes. But not on the job, somehow.

Oh, wait. That's right, closets are for clothes! I never was out on the job, except the one time I worked for a gay company. But, it is also true that, being a bit claustrophobic, I did tend to change jobs when the closet grew too confining, and people started figuring me out.

Modern times are different. My partner has always been out to HR and management, but only since moving to South Africa was he ever out in general. Now he considers going back to keeping his private life private when we relocate and he gets his next position. I rather liked it better being out, getting to meet his colleagues and such.posted by Goofyy at 3:30 AM on September 5, 2007

I may be indulging in stereotypes here, but aren't gays as a class more well off and higher educated than the population at large?

aren't gays as a class more well off and higher educated than the population at large?

Oh god, how did I miss that one? empath, think for a second. How do survey companies *get* lists of gay people to ask about income and education? That's right: they buy lists from datamining companies. How are those lists compiled? Well, most have historically come from - wait for it - lists of upscale gay magazine and catalog subscribers. The early surveys that claimed to show 'gay affluence' certainly did, done by marketing companies like Simmons Market Research Bureau who were desperate to use the 'gays have more disposable income!' angle to help advertisers reach the gay market. Many such lists used political donor data, too - again, a population that skews wealthy. It's like taking the subscriber base of Esquire or Vanity Fair as representative of the economic condition of the average straight person.

You really are indulging in stereotypes, but again, I'm happy to set you straight. Surveys that purport to show that 'gays as a class' are more well-off and better educated have always been tainted by a selection bias. How exactly would survey companies find poor and less educated gay people - queer kids kicked out of their houses for being gay, or transgendered folks living on the street because it's the only place they can find acceptance? Do you think marketers can just call people and start asking if they're gay and get anything like a useful pool?

The myth of gay affluence is one of the most pernicious and disgusting excuses for denying us our civil rights. Please take the time to read about why it's so wrong.posted by mediareport at 5:07 AM on September 5, 2007 [4 favorites]

Interestingly, through a twisted course of statutory interpretation and legislative history that I don't have time to explain now, transgender people are already protected against discrimination by Title VII (the federal Civil Rights statute) in some jurisdictions. It's pretty shaky precedent though, so it'd be good to have a clearer law protecting them.posted by footnote at 5:53 AM on September 5, 2007

Wow. 11% of Americans don't believe gay people technically qualify as people. That's a lot of people who don't think people are people.posted by tehloki at 6:20 AM on September 5, 2007

I just find it amazing that in the 21st century we're still debating about how other people bump uglies.

Discrimination: I don't know any of my gay friends who haven't experienced discrimination at some level. The ones who have chosen career paths in the arts/theatre/design fields less so than the ones who are mechanics, engineers and programmers. But even in the "gay" career paths, they've still run into a subtle form of "Well, of course you're gay, you're a designer" levels of discrimination.

Transgender folks...oh good gods, they catch flak from everyone. That has to be the most difficult decision to make, just knowing the vitriol that will be unleashed.

What I fail to understand is how the Puritan mindset is still so incredibly strong half a millenium later. Perhaps because I come from a fairly progressive background, what with the hippies and all that, but I really can't even wrap my head around how people could justify discrimination based on partner selection when making the beast with two backs. It just doesn't compute. To borrow a phrase from South Park; "this is a wookie".posted by dejah420 at 11:06 AM on September 5, 2007

Oh, man, I first read that as "Unlike so many…" and thought "Jesus, that's bold!"posted by klangklangston at 3:59 PM on September 5, 2007

I don't know any of my gay friends who haven't experienced discrimination at some level.

As far as I know, I've never personally experienced workplace discrimination for being gay, even though I've been working since 1980. I recall one boss years ago who I overheard making a sort of jerky homophobic comment to someone else, but it was really more a reflection of his awkward pointy-headed boss quality rather than actual homophobia. I also remember the same man being quite gracious when meeting my then partner.

I think what made the difference for me is how I presented myself: strong-willed, polite yet assertive decorum. That worked even 20 years ago when part of my tasks was explaining health and pension benefits to blue-collar construction workers. In the face of simple correct and professional "normalcy," people. simply. behaved. Guess I was lucky.

My former partner, by contrast, had a government job which required a security clearance. Being gay was considered a security risk, with the thought that one could be blackmailed. He had to hire a lawyer (yes, Frank Kameny) to assist, collected affidavits from all his family and friends explaining that they knew he was gay, etc, etc, etc. He did get the clearance, eventually. I don't think it's quite that excruciating these days, at least.posted by Robert Angelo at 4:34 PM on September 5, 2007

on all the groups against any rights or protections for us: from Holy Bullies & Headless Monsters... Anything that destroys their illusion that gays and lesbians are the proverbial things that go bump in the night, the boogeymen under the bed or the monsters in the closet, is "advancing the gay agenda" and they act against it in a manner so forceful that it would scare Attila the Hun into joining a sensitivity encounter group. ...posted by amberglow at 5:21 PM on September 5, 2007

Spineless asses--i never thought Barney Frank would cave like Pelosi: they're dropping the T part (it's asinine because Bush is going to veto it anyway, and the rightwing will not stop attacking)posted by amberglow at 10:20 PM on September 28, 2007

more: ...
The one thing we have on our side in the battle for a trans-inclusive ENDA is the fact that corporations have already dealt with this -- and it was clearly in evidence at this conference, where the large vendor hall featured a ton of Fortune 500 companies in just about every sector you could imagine - defense contractors (Raytheon, Boeing), banking and finance (Capital One, ING, Wachovia, HSBC, Merril Lynch, Wells Fargo), retail (Best Buy, Target, JC Penney, McDonalds), Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Toyota, Motorola, Sun, the list goes on and on. For most of them, LGBT anti-discrimination policies are a no-brainer, a done deal -- it's good for business, recruitment and retention, and a source of pride. That level of inclusion and commitment to equality makes this internal debate and debacle on the Hill about stripping down ENDA look petty -- and cowardly. ...posted by amberglow at 10:23 PM on September 28, 2007

The rationalizations of the trans-stripped ENDA crowd fall flat-- ...To think that the decision to dump T protections is based on the fact that we should help the largest group of marginalized folks at the expense of a subset is horrible, particularly when proposed so quickly by our own -- and allies on the Hill. A trans-inclusive ENDA would have been a symbolic vote, given Bush would veto it anyway, yet Ts were sold out in a flash because, in the minds of some, the floor debate, which will be contentious at any time given the kind of tactics the religious right uses, is too frightening. Just incredible. Leadership without a spine. ...posted by amberglow at 1:39 PM on October 1, 2007

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force: ... This morning, a letter signed by more than 90 national and state advocacy organizations that work on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people was delivered to Congress, asking for more time to garner support for ENDA as it was originally introduced. Some 2,500 congregations were asked to activate their memberships to call Congress. Students are also calling and e-mailing Congress and launching Facebook accounts to build support, working from 120 LGBT campus resource centers. Action alerts, blog postings and opinion pieces supporting a trans-inclusive ENDA have been flying over the Internet.
... There is no more fundamental human right for all of us than to be free to love and live as our minds and hearts guide us. But what is the value of freedom if we can't get and keep a job, something we all need to make for ourselves a decent life?

Discrimination at work hits transgender people particularly hard. A survey conducted in Washington, D.C., shows that 60 percent of transgender respondents report either no source of income or incomes of less than $10,000 per year, a clear indication of the desperate need for employment protections for transgender people. Employment discrimination undeniably erodes the freedoms of transgender people, and all the rest of us, to live as we know we must. ...posted by amberglow at 1:43 PM on October 1, 2007

just appalling:
The Non-Trans Inclusive ENDA Was Worse Than We Knew --... In addition to the missing vital protections for transgender people on the job, this new bill also leaves out a key element to protect any employee, including lesbians and gay men who may not conform to their employer's idea of how a man or woman should look and act. This is a huge loophole through which employers sued for sexual orientation discrimination can claim that their conduct was actually based on gender expression, a type of discrimination that the new bill does not prohibit.

- This version of ENDA states without qualification that refusal by employers to extend health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees that are provided only to married couples cannot be considered sexual orientation discrimination. The old version at least provided that states and local governments could require that employees be provided domestic partner health insurance when such benefits are provided to spouses.

- In the previous version of ENDA the religious exemptions had some limitations. The new version has a blanket exemption under which, for example, hospitals or universities run by faith-based groups can fire or refuse to hire people they think might be gay or lesbian. ...posted by amberglow at 9:51 AM on October 2, 2007

Tags

Share

About MetaFilter

MetaFilter is a weblog that anyone can contribute a link or a comment to. A typical weblog is one person posting their thoughts on the unique things they find on the web. This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members.